The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic feature that is found in any of the arts. Premodern general theories of art, however, focused primarily on painting and sculpture. Every premodern general theory of art, even those that succeed as theories of painting and sculpture, fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music.
Summary
The purpose of a general theory of art is to explain every aesthetic feature found in any form of art. Every premodern general theory of art fails to explain some aesthetic feature of music. Premodern general theories of art focus primarily on painting and sculpture.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
If music is art, then no premodern general theory of art achieves its purpose.
A
Any general theory of art that explains the aesthetic features of painting also explains those of sculpture.
This answer is unsupported. We know from the stimulus that premodern general theories of art primarily focus on painting and sculpture, but we don’t know if the same is true for any general theory of art.
B
A general theory of art that explains every aesthetic feature of music will achieve its purpose.
This answer is unsupported. The necessary condition for a general theory of art to achieve its purpose is for the theory to explain every aesthetic feature found in any art form. Only explaining every aesthetic feature of music is too narrow.
C
Any theory of art that focuses primarily on sculpture and painting cannot explain every aesthetic feature of music.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to general theories of art and premodern general theories of art. “Any theory of art” is too strong.
D
No premodern general theory of art achieves its purpose unless music is not art.
This answer is strongly supported. If we were to (safely) assume that music is an art form, then premodern general theories of art fail to achieve their purpose outlined in the first sentence.
E
No premodern general theory of art explains any aesthetic features of music that are not shared with painting and sculpture.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus if there are any aesthetic features that music, painting, and sculpture do not share.
Jennifer: Indeed. In fact, a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources from normal growth to the development of pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.
Summarize Argument
Peter concludes that farmers should water their plants just enough to ensure there’s no threat to the yield or growth of the crops. This is because plants that are abundantly watered are susceptible to pests.
Notable Assumptions
In order for his recommended strategy to be sound, Peter assumes that mildly drought-stressed plants are not at greater risk than are the abundantly watered plants that insects eat. Were the opposite true, it would be preferable for farmers to water their crops and avoid the stress of drought at all costs.
A
The leaves of some crop plants are much larger, and therefore absorb more water, than the leaves of some other crop plants.
Peter thinks all these crops should be watered just enough to avoid being targeted by insects. We don’t care how much water it takes to get these crops to that point.
B
In industrialized nations there are more crops that are abundantly watered than there are crops grown under mild drought stress.
Peter thinks industrialized nations should switch their strategy.
C
Insect damage presents a greater threat to crop plants than does mild drought stress.
Plants can either be exposed to mild drought stress or insects. Insects are more damaging, so the alternative is a better option. This is what Peter argues.
D
Farmers are not always able to control the amount of water that their crops receive when, for instance, there are rainstorms in the areas where their crops are growing.
Peter argues for what farmers should do when watering their plants. We don’t care about rainstorms, which are totally out of farmers’ control.
E
Mexican bean beetles are more likely to feed on the leaves of slightly drought-stressed soybeans than oak lace bugs are to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered soybeans.
This is strangely specific. It’s an exception to a rule Peter gives us: insects are more likely to feed on abundantly watered plants. We can’t directly contradict that premise.
Jennifer: Indeed. In fact, a mildly drought-stressed plant will divert a small amount of its resources from normal growth to the development of pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.
Summarize Argument
Jennifer agrees with Peter’s claim that farmers should water plants just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. As evidence, she points out that mildly drought-stressed plants will develop pesticidal toxins, but abundantly watered plants will not.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Jennifer supports the judgment reached by Peter. She does this by presenting independent evidence which supports his conclusion. The fact mildly drought-stressed plants produce pesticidal toxins supports the judgment that farmers should only water crops just enough.
A
It offers information that supports each of the claims that Peter makes in his argument.
Jennifer’s comment does not support each of Peter’s claims. Jennifer’s comment is offered as directy support for Peter’s conclusion.
B
It supports Peter’s argument by supplying a premise without which Peter’s conclusion cannot properly be drawn.
Jennifer’s comment is not a necessary assumption that Peter’s argument relies on. Jennifer’s comment supports Peter’s conclusion, but it does not have to be necessary.
C
It supports Peter’s argument by offering an explanation of all of Peter’s premises.
Jennifer’s comment does not explain any of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is independent from Peter’s premises.
D
It supports one of Peter’s premises although it undermines Peter’s conclusion.
Jennifer’s comment does not support one of Peter’s premises. Jennifer’s comment is offered as support for Peter’s conclusion.
E
It supports the conclusion of Peter’s argument by offering independent grounds for that conclusion.
The conclusion Jennifer supports is that farmers should only water crops just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. Jennifer’s comment is independent support for this conclusion.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author asks us to agree that Hogan’s actions shouldn’t be condemned entirely, even though Hogan knowingly and intentionally injured Winters. What could support letting Hogan partially off the hook? Well, Hogan thought Winters was a robber, which the author thinks should lessen the degree to which we blame Hogan.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is their opinion of Hogan’s blameworthiness: “Hogan’s actions [should] not be wholly condemned.”
A
Hogan should not be considered responsible for the injuries sustained by Winters.
This is stronger than what the argument claims. The author wants us to refrain from “wholly condemning” Hogan, but that doesn’t mean not holding him responsible at all.
B
The robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings should be considered to be as responsible for Winters’s injuries as Hogan.
The author never discusses whether the robber should be held responsible, let alone how the responsibility should be divided. This is just beyond the scope of the argument.
C
The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters are not completely blameworthy.
This accurately restates the conclusion. When asking us to agree that Hogan “not be fully condemned,” the author is trying to convince us that Hogan was not completely blameworthy. The argument then offers support for this claim, meaning it’s the conclusion.
D
Hogan thought that Winters was the person who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the last few months.
This is stated in the argument but no support is offered, so it can’t be a conclusion. Instead, this statement is a premise to support the conclusion that Hogan wasn’t entirely to blame.
E
The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters were reprehensible, other things being equal.
This can be inferred from the argument, but it’s more of a contextual claim to explain why the author needs to convince us that Hogan shouldn’t be fully condemned. This idea is what the author argues against, or at least tries to qualify.
Summarize Argument
The doctor concludes that we should restructure the workday for the sake of scheduling flexibility. This is because most people are sleep deprived, and sleep deprivation is the root of many social ills.
Notable Assumptions
The doctor assumes that scheduling flexibility will help people be less sleep deprived. This means the doctor also believes that the current workday is responsible for sleep deprivation. The doctor also assumes that helping people be less sleep deprivation is a priority, hence why the workday should be restructured. She sees no countervailing downsides to doing so.
A
The primary cause of sleep deprivation is overwork.
The doctor doesn’t say people should work less hours. She says the workday should be restructured for flexibility.
B
Employees would get more sleep if they had greater latitude in scheduling their work hours.
Scheduling flexibility would allow workers to get more sleep. Thus, restructuring the workday would help people be less sleep deprived.
C
Individuals vary widely in the amount of sleep they require.
We don’t care. We’re trying strengthen the connection between scheduling flexibility and people being less sleep deprived.
D
More people would suffer from sleep deprivation today than did in the past if the average number of hours worked per week had not decreased.
The doctor doesn’t recommend increasing or decreasing the number of hours in the workweek. Nor do we care about historical trends in sleep deprivation.
E
The extent of one’s sleep deprivation is proportional to the length of one’s workday.
Like (A), the doctor never discusses how many hours people should work per day.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The government official concludes that there is no easily achievable way to eliminate chronic food shortages in his country. To support this conclusion, he raises, then rejects, two possible solutions. First, he says that direct food shipments from other countries will weaken the country’s long-term agricultural self sufficiency because these food shipments would force local producers out of business. And secondly, foreign investments in long-term development projects would result in inflation, making food unaffordable and perpetuating the food shortages.
Identify Argument Part
The claim in the question stem is a premise that rejects one of the potential solutions to the food shortages; in demonstrating that foreign investment will not easily solve the food shortage, this claim works to support the government official’s conclusion.
A
It supports the claim that the official’s country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.
The official does not claim that the country must become agriculturally self sufficient––this language is too strong; instead, he says that direct aid would undermine the possibility to of self-sufficiency. Also, the referenced text does not support the idea in this answer.
B
It supports the claim that there is no easy solution to the problem of chronic food shortages in the official’s country.
The claim in the question stem is a premise that supports the conclusion, so this answer is correct because it correctly identifies the conclusion.
C
It is supported by the claim that the official’s country must someday be agriculturally self-sufficient.
The claim in the question stem is a premise; it does not get support from any other part of the text.
D
It supports the claim that donations of food from other countries will not end the chronic food shortages in the official’s country.
The information about the results of food donation is separate from the information about the results of foreign investment; these are two separate premises that do not support each other. Instead, they both work to support the conclusion.
E
It is supported by the claim that food producers and suppliers in the official’s country may be forced out of business by donations of food from other countries.
Similar to answer C, this answer is wrong because the claim in the question text is a premise, so it does not receive support from any other part of the argument.